Jump to content

Talk:Macedonia naming dispute/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

On recent edit

FP you are absolutely right, it's huge and I was going to trim it a bit. But we have to add the new info according to the updated link. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Taivo, this comes from the updatedGreek MFA link. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, wrong button, I meant to press undo! Anyway, this is a summarize version of the new info as for today. The previous one was since 2006, see the source. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
So, in other words, more Greek propaganda. Don't just blindly revert without coming to a consensus here. Please explain why this belongs. You may be right to add this, but the way your edit was written is too pro-Greek. Please justify and explain what's different between this new statement and the same old Greek intransigence. --Taivo (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I will make it as simple and easy to understand as possible. Yesterday, as I was going a bit through the article I noticed that the reference to the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs was outdated (2006), so I update it [1]. Then I checked parts of the article using the same reference in order to see if they need to be edited according to the updated reference, and I came to the Greek position section. Consequently I added the info which corresponds to the updated reference and while I was summarizing it because it was too long, FP prevent my edit before I save it, commenting exactly on the size of the quote, asking me to summarize it, something that I was doing at the moment he was reverting my previous edit. As you can see here on the talk page I totally agreed with FP, and I continued to complete the summarization process. So I summarized by only using the parts from the reference on why the Greek government officially uses the United Nations' provisional reference for the country ("the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"), as it was already stated in the sentence pointing to the GMFA quote, leaving all other parts out. Then you reverted my edit using words as "propaganda" and "Greek intransigence" for the official Greek position on the issue, claiming that is "too pro-Greek"... Well, this is the updated official Greek position, coming from the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, either we agree with it or not. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. --Taivo (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2016

May I add South Sudan because it has no diplomatic relations with Macedonia. 2602:30A:C0FF:A6E0:A17E:9B63:3DC4:2BFC (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

On the lead

The second paragraph of the lead summarises the Greek position. Should there not be a corresponding summary of the Macedonian position? Pinkbeast (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

discussion with banned user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Summary of Greece position 2016. can be find in the Letter of Greek President Pavlopoulos to Macedonian government: "

“We demand from neighboring Balkan countries, who have the ambition to integrate into the European Union. We want to point out to them that their claims for certain names, they're brutally falsifying history and spreading irredentism, but also with their barbaric acts against refugees they do not have a European future because they are directly violating European principles and values”, Pavlopoulos said in a message to mark the Greek national holiday" [2] , namely two accusations :1. Irredentism, and 2. Falsifying history and the name. Answers on that accusations can be find for example at Macedonian Wiki. art on Macedonian naming dispute [3] at the end of the text of article (види http://popovashapka.com/Makedonija-the_name_legal_dr.htm). On the falsification of the name, answer was based on non-existent exclusivity on state names in Int. Law (Professors Henkin, Pugh, Schachter and Smit observe that there “appears to be no basis in international law or practice” for the Greek demand that Macedonia change its name, “claiming that the right to use that name should belong exclusively to Greece.” It is apparent that the Greek demands regarding the name of Macedonia are motivated mainly by concern that the admission to the United Nations of a state with that name may add strength in the political arena to possible Macedonian claims to Greek territory. The name itself has no legal bearing on such a potential dispute and no relevance to the qualifications that may legally be considered in connection with the admission of a state to the United Nations.) Namely, state name can not be stolen or falsified, and every state has a right to a name. As for second accusation on Irredentism there was similar logic : "Greek allegation that the name of the applicant implies “territorial claims” has no legal significance. Obviously, the name of a state, which is a subject of that state’s domestic jurisdiction (since every state naturally has an inherent right to a name), does not create international legal rights for the state that adopts the name, nor does it impose legal obligations on other states. Clearly, the name, per se, does not have a direct impact on the territorial rights of states. ". In conclusion, general argument is that "the inherent right of a state to have a name can be derived from the necessity for a juridical personality to have a legal identity." There is no link to territory, history, theft, etc. So the two Greece accusations were there resolved. Macedonian government is still negotiating on name with Greece (Names as : Upper, Northern, Vardar and New (Macedonia)). I don't know if I helped you at all. Regards! 109.93.127.250 (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

My inquiry pertained to improvement of the article; not "what is the Macedonian position?", but "why isn't the Macedonian position in the lead?" Pinkbeast (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, many people felt that the article should be balanced. (Before year 2000, even Macedonians believed that Greek arguments were legitimate, and that those were more logical than arguments of the Macedonians.) Anyway, the Wiki should remain impartial. 109.93.127.250 (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
In what sense is it "balanced" or "impartial" to present the Greek position at length in the lead without a whisper of the Macedonian one? Pinkbeast (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Well I agree with you, article is not "impartial", but on the other side, if the Macedonians themselves agreed currently to negotiate with Greece about the new name: "Upper Republic of Macedonia" (most recent proposal), thus admitting that they were ready for compromise and actually contributed to the legitimization of the so called "Greek concerns", "balanced" approach is not entirely possible. So if Macedonians themselves really want to change its name, strike the compromise, maybe the best policy of Wikipedia is to wait and see what will happened in the future. (Currently Greeks seems to be ready for the name - compromise "Republic of Upper Macedonia", as an UN unofficial proposal). 109.93.127.250 (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
That makes no sense whatsoever. Frankly, I'd edit myself but I'm finding it quite hard to elucidate the Macedonian position beyond the (entirely reasonable) "don't be silly, it's just a name". Pinkbeast (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I basically agree with your conclusion. It's indeed silly. But both Greece and Macedonia have engaged best people in their MFA's and Intelligence services in attempts to resolve that "problem".178.223.26.17 (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
That is entirely irrelevant to the question of why there is no statement of the Macedonian position in the lead. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The best course to change that is to contact administrators. I should even not comment here at all, since I am a banned user close to the most hated person here called user "Operahome". I am only an observer with no interest to intervene here, not a Wikipedian user or editor, neither want to become one. 178.223.26.17 (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Fix broken references (12 June 2016)

I found a couple of broken references. Went through the archive to actually read. It would be nice to have the page link directly to them:

Broken link: http://www.sre.gob.mx/csocial_viejo/contenido/comunicados/2008/oct/cp_298.html Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20140227171657/http://www.sre.gob.mx/csocial_viejo/contenido/comunicados/2008/oct/cp_298.html

Broken link: http://www2.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/Articles/en-US/201008_H2015.htm Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20120819150304/http://www2.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/Articles/en-US/201008_H2015.htm

40.139.112.162 (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Palestine

May I edit, because Palestine is a state with limited recognition.107.77.231.227 (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

If you want to edit about Palestine's position on Macedonia's name, I suggest producing a cite here. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

South Sudan

South Sudan declared it's independence in 2011, and I don't think it's included in the no report on name usage or recognition sidebar so can I edit?2602:30A:C0FF:A6E0:9C47:9E15:7100:8722 (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll be happy to add it if we can figure out which category it belongs in. Do you have any information? If not, we can add it to the "no report" section as you suggest, but we should at least make an effort to look first. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I do, it's on the Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia article, so can I please edit because I don't see the lock symbol.172.15.250.110 (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
172.15.250.110 and 2602:30A:C0FF:A6E0:9C47:9E15:7100:8722 are probably IPs of the same user --BurritoBazooka (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

South Sudan missing in no report on name usage or recognition section

I don't see South Sudan's flag in the no report on name usage or recognition, and this article was protected since February 2013 and I don't see a lock symbol.172.15.250.110 (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Whoever fulfils this request, also consider this new source (the current one is only available through archives), which only mentions a couple of countries (no Zimbabwe, for example) compared to the current one. http://www.mfa.gov.mk/index.php/en/foreign-policy/bilateral-relations/non-european-countries I'm not sure what to do about that, considering both sources come from the same entity. Is the new source simply being more brief than the archived one by highlighting some countries, or does the new source abrogate the old one completely? --BurritoBazooka (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. VarunFEB2003 I am Online 07:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@VarunFEB2003: Please clarify. Reasonable effort was made to find out South Sudan's stance on their name for FYROM. They are a sovereign state with no apparent bilateral relation with FYROM according to the source already used in the article. Therefore it is appropriate to place it under the "no reports" section. Or is your response related to something else? Do you think a source which is dated after South Sudan's independence is necessary? What? --BurritoBazooka (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@BurritoBazooka:Frankly I did not completely read your part, I read IP's he had no sources therefore I put that on. and yes I think so. Thanks I'll withdraw it VarunFEB2003 I am Online 08:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Naming policies of foreign countries and organisations

I removed the part of the section mentioned, challenged by banners since 2014. I invoked WP:SYNTH in doing that. The part of the section I removed remains insufficiently sourced. While many websites may speak of FYROM, it seems very unlikely that actual letters of credence by Macedonian ambassadors, that were all accepted by the governments involved, mention that name. I therefore also invoke extraordinary claims. I also noticed that countries on the list that supposedly recognize Macedonia as FYROM, speak about "the Republic of Macedonia" in official communications. Basically FYROM is only used by international organisations and not officially in bilateral relations with other countries. The article should not suggest that it is otherwise. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you. On the other side, it seems to me contradictory to the logic that states members of International organizations, such as UN and their spec. orgs., had recognized state individually under its constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia", but as, and in, organized int. agencies / orgs. i.e. collectively under the reference FYROM! 93.86.240.192 (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Basically international organisations don't get to recognize countries or their names. None state agents have no business doing so. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Again I agree with you. International Organizations don't recognize countries. Its not their business. But I found unusual that United Nations "solved deference" by imposition of the "provisional reference" to the independent state, candidate for UN membership. 93.86.240.192 (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Please remember that the purpose of talk pages is to discuss improvements to the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Macedonia naming dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Different interpretation of History in Eastern European countries!?

Off-topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

According to Serbian and few Eastern European Wikis Macedonians were mix of Illyrians and Thracians and some old tribes [4]. Any comments? Different interpretation of History in Eastern European countries!?93.87.185.49 (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

According to them the ancient Macedonians were anything but Greek. :) The truth is that the ultra-nationalists of the Republic of Macedonia - not of the Republic of Macedonia collectively - are trying to dissociate ancient Macedonia from anything Greek and associate it with the modern Slavic country of the RoM. However the vast majority of primary, secondary and tertiary sources agree on the Greekness of Macedonia. Ian Worthington ("Alexander the Great: Man and God", 2014) correctly argues that "There is still more than enough evidence and reasoned theory to suggest that the Macedonians were racially Greek". Macedonian (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Typo?

Martti Ahtisaari is described in this article as the 'US Special Envoy for Kosovo', but his own Wikipedia page (and many other sources) say he was the UN Special Envoy (which makes more sense, as Ahtisaari is a Finnish rather than an American citizen). Might it be possible for someone to correct this typo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.206.243 (talk • contribs)

Yes, that makes much more sense. I updated the article. --David Edgar (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about thread closure above

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Please elaborate as to why you feel questions regarding the history of Macedonians (as brought up above in #Different interpretation of History in Eastern European countries!?) seem off topic to you in regards to an article seeking to cover the Macedonia naming dispute? It's not self-evident to me (and may not be so to others). --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

To start with, it was not a question, even less a question relating to improving our article. It was an invitation for polemic about some perceived ideological slant in certain articles on other Wikipedias. Those are out of scope here anyway. Plus, it was unrelated to the topic of this article. This article is about what modern entities are or should be called "Macedonia" and why some people have disagreements over that. It is not about the ethnic composition of some ancient tribes two thousand years ago. The likelihood that this discussion would have resulted in anything fruitful for the development of our article here was precisely zero. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence on this page that any effort was made to form a consensus opinion as to such. And the section following the lede begins with "In antiquity," ... Was the decision to close perhaps, as it seems, simply a unilateral action based largely on your own assertion of 'prescience'? --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It was based on long experience with discussions in this topic area. If you have something on-topic and constructive to contribute to the discussion, feel free to re-open it. If not, may I suggest you refrain from acing like a process-wonking busybody? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
So easy to skip process and resort to name calling and presumption when you're part of the admin club, eh? WP:AGF, ha, just pablum for the peons ... 'Mall cop' tropes come to mind ... Why bother to offer detail in a closing summary when you're the only one who matters, right? Please show your fellow editors a bit more consideration in the future. --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Process aside, I agree with F.P. that that discussion was evidently not going to do the article the slightest bit of good. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 43 external links on Macedonia naming dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Macedonia naming dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Naming policies of international organisations

In August 2016 there was a discussion (now archive 7) about the section "Naming policies of foreign countries and organisations".

We now have a section "Naming policies of international organisations", which in its present form does not make much sense, as it just lists international organisations, but does not explain their policies concerning this naming conflict. I suggest to either delete the section or (preferably) to fill it with information.

--Austrian (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it would actually be preferable to remove it. Cynic that I am, I think it may have been cherry-picked to favour FYROM rather than by importance of organisation (the Association of Tennis Professionals merits inclusion?) Pinkbeast (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete. I find Pinkbeast's hypothesis of cherry-picking quite likely. I mean, how is the Francophonie relevant here? Neither Macedonia, nor Greece, nor this wiki is French speaking.--Khajidha (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Greek position

I think the quote from the Greek foreign ministry is much too long. The first paragraph expresses their position. The second is perhaps pertinent. The rest are just soothing diplomatic noises; I suggest they be removed. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree. These whole sections are far too long and give far too much room to arguing for the respective views rather than just sketching out the issues. This has been an deeply entrenched problem with this article from the start. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Religion and the Macedonian Naming Dispute: The length of one's quotes certainly determines the TRUTH of one's position. --Taivo (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
If you want to evaluate the truth by measuring the length of a quotation, then I guess the late ethnic Macedonian President's famous quote, "We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century [...] we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians" is more true than ever about the dispute, right? Just some thinking. Anyways, this is Wikipedia and we, as its editors, have only one job here: to improve and keep the articles as neutral as possible, not to judge the sides of a dispute. This is the task of the historians I am afraid, and as far as I know, they have already decided on this. Don't you think? --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 23:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I certainly hope that the <sarcasm on>...<sarcasm off> wiki markings didn't go unnoticed. --Taivo (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Pinkbeast, Fut.Perf., Taivo and SilentResident, Concerning the (probably unvolunteer, but still) doubtless mistake about the “Socialist Federal Republic of Macedonia” (that should certainly be “Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”), can't we just add a note or something in square brackets to indicate it to those who would not notice it ? SenseiAC (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Added [sic]. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on Macedonia naming dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

All skai.gr links produce a 404 page. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Macedonia naming dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

A minor modification

In the Continuing Dispute section, it says "The nationalist VMRO-DPMNE (then opposition, now ruling) party, called a vote of no confidence over the naming issue, but the government survived with 62 deputies voting in its favour." I was thinking the "now ruling" should be removed. Ruling parties go in and out of power, so it is kind of unnecessary to say who is in power now, when speaking of a past event. Plus you wouldn't need to update this line every time it changes. Psion20 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You are absolutelly right. Encyclopedias allways avoid talking in present preciselly because of what you said. Words such as "currently" or "present day" should never be used. FkpCascais (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

2017-2018 development edits

I see we're doing "bold-revert-revert"?

I disagree with both reversions in [5].

The easy one; the Alexander the Great airport in Skopje and the Alexander the Great Highway are not named after "Ancient Macedonian heroes and figures such as Alexander the Great". They are named after Alexander the Great. They aren't incidentally named after some other ancient Macedonian hero or figure, just Alexander the Great.

The tricky one; having read the cites, no, I don't agree that they are clear that the PMs, plural, vowed to take steps against irredentism. They seem clear that the Greek PM made a lot of noises about it, but where do the cites say the Macedonian PM made more than an incidental mention of it? Pinkbeast (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Pinkbeast. These current sources must be carefully vetted so that the Wikipedia summary doesn't say more than the source and doesn't imply any greater agreement than was actually reached. --Taivo (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, in the 3-hour long talks, (Tsipras was alone with Zaev in the first two hours and then two Foreign ministers joined them for one more hour) has offered Zaev the following that can be done without a settlement to the name dispute. These are: 1) the Republic of Macedonia's entry to the Adriatic-Ionian Cooperation Agreement will be unblocked and, 2) the Greek Parliament will proceed with the ratification of the second phase of the FYROM - European Union Association Agreement which was blocked by Greece's governments due to the name dispute. And Zaev from his part to halt immediately the nationalist policies of the previous VMRO-DPMNE government that were harmful to the relations between the two countries, to rename the public venues and streets that were named after ancient figures, and to take measures that could prevent future governments from returning to such kind of policies. Zaev also vowed to prove with actions that there is no longer irredendism towards Macedonia's southern neighbor. These were the talks, which focused on the issues that are of utmost priority for the Greek side: irredendism and name dispute.
I am monitoring closely the foreign ministries of both countries, as well as the offices of the Prime Ministries as well as the media, and I have yet to find any announcements or reports by them denying what was discussed in that meeting yesterday. So far, it is only you the editors being unwilling to accept the content of these talks, which is strange, since no source does. It is clear what can be done in such cases: we stick with what available information we have on this and keep any wishful thinkings we may have about that 3-hour long meeting for ourselves since they are nothing more but WP:OR. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 16:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
What wishful thinking? Please don't ascribe this sort of motive to other editors; I simply have not seen a cite justifying the material you've inserted - and it would be slightly easier to find what you're talking about if you'd actually say which cite it is. In particular, is the material above from a Greek source, and if so, does their understanding and representation of the talks match that of the Macedonian negotiators? Does any source independent of the two countries confirm that the PMs, plural, vowed to take steps against (etc) ?
You also haven't addressed the very simple issue that the Alexander the Great airport and the Alexander the Great highway aren't named after "heroes and figures such as Alexander the Great", anymore than Trafalgar Square is named after "sea battles such as Trafalgar". Don't requote "rename the public venues and streets" above; the sentence in the article is presently about two things both of which are named only after Alexander the Great. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
My apologies, but re-reading your comment didn't help me understand what you are asking is illogical - You want to remove a sentence providing wiki-links to pages very relevant to the specific issue discussed between the two leaders... Do I have to address something here about the obvious fact (to anyone familiar with the Macedonia-Greece affairs) of the reason these statues and the airport were enacted/renamed? if you do not happen to be familiar with that, then it is a good idea to update yourself about Macedonian nationalism and Antiquization which are sourced articles and contain alot of valuable information about how such places/statues came to be and for what reasons. Here, I only linked to these very relevant articles, the information about the Greek side requesting their undoing. To provide the readers with the relevant wiki-links so they can read in depth and detail about VMRO-DPMNE's policies, regardless of whether its policies are explicitly mentioned in the said sources. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 19:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I do want to remove that sentence because I have not yet seen a cite saying that the Macedonian PM vowed to address those issues. If there is such a cite, please indicate which one you are referring to. If there is not, it should be removed as uncited material.
The other sentence has been addressed, but the issue was really very simple. As it was written, it was about two things named after Alexander the Great. Such things are not named after "heroes and figures such as Alexander the Great"; either the subject or the object of the sentence needed to change. The subject has changed so that's OK. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

There also seems to be no cite to say that the proposed names are "untranslatable". I also agree with TaivoLinguist that "in Cyrillic", while true, seems unnecessary to mention. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Since Macedonian is the official language of the Republic of Macedonia, and since Macedonian is only written in the Cyrillic alphabet, it's like saying that the names of the states in the United States are written in the Roman alphabet. It's an obvious consequence of changing a Macedonian name in the Macedonian language. It sounds like a piece of naive wonder, actually: "I traveled to Beijing and all the signs were written in Chinese!!". Duh. --Taivo (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually the UN envoy, Mathew Nimetz, according to the sources, is proposing that the country's name, and the people's idendity and language stay "Macedonian", but use the Cyrillic rendition instead of English rendition for international purposes, to circumvent the Greek objections to the use of the English name Macedonia to refer to them. Here I am quoting the sources for you:
KeepTalkingGreece.com: The Nimetz package also proposes that the country’s citizenship, as it will be denoted on passports and official documents, be called either “makedonski” with the Slavic rendition, or “nationality of the Republika Nova Makedonija”
News.In.Gr: Το ενδεχόμενο το όνομα που θα επιλεγεί να είναι αμετάφραστο ηχεί άσχημα σε πολλούς στα Σκόπια, ενώ η προστασία της ταυτότητας συνιστά το κρίσιμο ζήτημα ώστε η ηγεσία της πΓΔΜ να μπορέσει να περάσει μια λύση. Translation: "The possibility that the name chosen will be untranslatable sounds bad to many in Skopje, while identity protection is the crucial issue for Macedonian leadership to be able to pass a solution."
TopRadio.gr: Υπάρχει ένα ερώτημα, είναι στα Αγγλικά; Οι πληροφορίες λένε αλλά είναι ακόμα αδιασταύρωτες ότι οι δύο τουλάχιστον από τις τρεις ονομασίες είναι στα σλάβικα και θα είναι αμετάφραστες. Έτσι δικαιολογούνται οι σφοδρές αντιδράσεις και η δυσαρέσκεια των Σκοπίων για το όνομα. Translation: "There is a question: are they in English? The information claims, but is still unverified that at least two of the three names are in Slavic and will be untranslatable. This justifies the strong reactions and skepticism in Macedonia for the (Nimetz's proposed) name.
News.Makedonias.Gr: Την ίδια ώρα εφημερίδα των Σκοπίων δημοσίευε στη σλαβική και αμετάφραστα τα πέντε ονόματα που φέρεται να προτείνει ο ειδικός διαμεσολαβητής του ΟΗΕ, Μάθιου Νίμιτς. Translation: "At the same time, a Macedonian newspaper published the five names in Slavic and untranslatable allegedly proposed by UN special mediator, Matthew Nimetz."
ToVima.Gr: The proposal provides for a Slavic spelling of the country’s language, either “makedonski” or a more descriptive version, official language of the Republic of New Macedonia. The Nimetz package also proposes that the country’s citizenship, as it will be denoted on passports and official documents, be called either “makedonski” with the Slavic rendition, or “nationality of the Republika Nova Makedonija”
I do not undestand why could Nimetz propose the names to be in Slavic and Untranslatable, if this wasn't true. Also, I do not understand why no official authorities or diplomats from either side, Macedonian or Greek, or even Nimetz himself, ever made any efforts (nor released announcements) to deny this information leaked in the media. Nor do I understand why there could be strong reactions in the Republic of Macedonia for the change of their identity's name into Slavic rendition for all uses and have it untranslatable, if this wasn't the case, at all. So many days have passed since the 5 names were leaked, and the Nimetz proposals have now been reported on all mainstream media in both countries, and none, not even one diplomat, nor Nimetz himself, ever commented on the leaked information at all.
Instead, there are reports that Macedonia's Ambassador Vasko Naumovski (to whom Nimetz presented the proposals at Washington) reacted strongly against these proposals which (according to the media always) was the exact reason the negotiations were elevated to the Ministerial level and Ambassador Naumovski of VMRO-DPMNE was replaced by the Macedonian FM Dimitrov of SDSM. Also there are reports that while Nimetz has avoided commenting on the leaked proposals, he commented negatively to Vasko Naumovski's undiplomatic move of criticizing the proposals without consulting with his country's government beforehand. The government of Macedonia in fact distanced itself from Naumovski on this. I have all the sources, I can post them here but I am not finding them to be relevant to our discussion here. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 16:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
"Untranslatable" is a mistranslation and so is "Cyrillic". Here is what he is proposing in English:
  • The names will obviously be in Cyrillic in Macedonian.
  • But when referring to the country in other languages, rather than using the common name "Macedonia" in those languages, that a transliteration of the Macedonian linguistic form be used
  • That will set up a distinction in English, for example, between "Macedonia" used for everything except the Republic and "Makedonski" for the Republic.
That isn't "untranslatable", it's "using a direct transliteration of the Macedonian form rather than a translation of the Macedonian form". Thank you for providing the actual quotes so that we can correct the English for our purposes. --Taivo (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, my friend. I am very glad I helped out. So, as you see, this is the core of the Nimetz proposals: that a transliteration of Cyrillic will be used when referring to the country in other languages, rather than using the common name "Macedonia".
As for the term "Untranslatable", my apologies, as I had difficulty finding a more accurate replacement for it, and so I just used the term used by the media, but the term "Transliteration" by User:Jingiby and you, is actually much better and describes the Nimetz proposals more accurately.-- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 17:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@Taivo:, @Pinkbeast: Should we add the Tsipras-Zaev agreement for the unblocking of FYROM - European Union Association Agreement and the Adriatic-Ionian Cooperation Agreement by Greece to the article? Note that these two initiatives/procedures were not mentioned previously on it. Or are they bloatware information? -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 17:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a fairly significant development, so I'll tentatively say yes. --Taivo (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Pinkbeast has kept up with edits on the article that are questionable at best, and without providing any adequate explanation, including POV-oriented edits: [6] I have reverted them. [7] If the editor has any problems with well-sourced content or WP:RS, he should discuss them here on this talk page instead of resorting to disruptive edits. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 23:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have now implemented the information Pinkbeast has tried to add, but this time by taking in account all the sources to avoid any possible POV implications, including the very reliable BIRN sources which were ignored by Pinkbeast in his edits. The changes can be seen here: [8]. Have a good day. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 23:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I am discussing them here. It is you who chose to do bold-revert-revert, you who accuses editors of "wishful thinking" simply because they demand sources for material you add, and it is you who still has failed to say which cite actually justifies the conclusion that the Macedonian PM vowed to do things.
As regards this edit, a cite you added to the article says "Officially on the Macedonian side there is no confirmation that on November 4, a mixed Greek-Macedonian commission on history should start to work, that is, to change textbooks according to the requirements of the southern neighbor" (and no source says that any Macedonian spokesperson has confirmed this claim). If you think that source is reliable, then my edit simply adds material based on it; if not, why did you add an unreliable source to the article? Pinkbeast (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
That, of the two signatory parties, the one side confirmed it and the other side kept its silence, does not make the MUI less true than it is. However, that could be the case if a Macedonian official ever came out and denied the information in question, or the confirmation by the Greek side. In such an event, then it could be worth to add to the article that it was not confirmed or even denied. Since NONE of these conditions occurred, I am sorry to disappoint you but I don't see how the lack of official position of one of the two signatory parties of the MUI makes it significant. We have many cases where a party signs something, but chooses to not make a public statement about it. This is much more common in politics than you might have thought. --
EDIT: given however your positions, that this whole case about the Macedonian irredendism is just a Greek opinion and nothing more, one wonders if you made the changes about the non-statement of the Macedonian side on the MUIs, not for the purpose of "simply adding material" to the article, but for the purposes of giving the wrong impression about the Greek side on this, that it is not a reliable or confirmed information at all. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 23:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
One of the two cites you added which discuss it explicitly mentions that no Macedonian statement has confirmed it. Is it a reliable source or is it not? If it is, then _they_ consider the lack of Macedonian confirmation significant.
The "Greek side" has not confirmed it. Both the cites you add it attribute it to Kotsias alone.
What is significant is that this agreement about textbooks may simply not exist; Kotsias may simply be playing for the domestic audience - also a common situation in politics. (And, before you say it, I'm not advocating the article should say that; I'm advocating the article should say what your sources say. Kotsias asserts this agreement exists; no Macedonian source confirms.)
Re the EDIT, did you forget AGF? To be fair, you did that when you started to accuse people for "wishful thinking" for wanting the source you have not yet provided. Also, of course, that's not my position. My position is that Macedonian irredentism is something the Greeks talk about and the Macedonians don't. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
It seems the core of your edits are to illustrate the point that the Macedonian side does not acknowledge any irredentism against Greece, nor any of its actions relate to battling irredentism in any way. But I am afraid the Macedonian PM himself linked the renaming of the Airport and other venues with the Greek concerns for irredentism. Let me quote Zoran Zaev and his official statements where he announced that he is taking steps to prove and to assure the Greek side that his country, now that the SDSM-led alliance is in the government, has no irredentist intentions by renaming venues and highways the previous VMRO-DPMNE government named and which were regarded as irredentist by the Greek side, His official statement is here: [9]
Quote: I am announcing, that my country will change the name of the airport and the avenues. This action shows our good faith. This proves the fact that we have no irredentist attitude towards our neighbor. All these will help us to improve our relations and our relations with the EU as well as with.
Macedonian irredentism may not be seen as such among Macedonian people, but this doesn't make it less of irredentism for the other countries in the region. Nor does this makes it have less significant impact for Macedonia's neighboring states which take their safety and territorial integrity seriously and are raising the matter in their bilateral talks as Tsipras, and Papandreou, and Karamanlis, and even Simitis have already done before him. Like it or not, the new government of Macedonia, under SDSM, is reverting the policies of the previous VMRO-DPMNE government due to irredentist concerns of its neighbors and, no matter how you see it, PinkBeast, irredentism is an issue affecting the relations between the two countries. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 09:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Despite providing WP:RS from my part which confirm the Macedonian PM's move being related to the Greek concerns of irredentism, you haven't reverted your edits to the page, and you have remained quiet in the past 24 hours instead of addressing the sources. You left me no other option but to revert your edits myself once more. I am not going to keep correcting you forever, so please, next time. try and be more careful in what you are doing with the sourced information I have added to the article. And most importantly: cite sources for your edits, not your opinions. Last, if you want to question the RS or the sourced content for the fact that they are citing non-Macedonian sources, then you can very well go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and have the volunteers and admins there update you on Wikipedia's policies regarding the Reliability of Sources. Good day. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 03:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
You have not provided any source to justify the statement "the two PMs vowed to take concrete steps to resolve the naming dispute and agreed to end Macedonian irredentism and Antiquization policies". You have provided a source that says that the Macedonian PM says "we have no irredentist attitude towards our neighbor". There is no admission there that they ever had such an attitude for it to be ended, nor anything pertaining to the supposed antiquisation policies, so you still have no source for this material.
The rest of your comment here is pointless rhetoric. I'm seeking, only, a source for the statement that the Macedonian PM "agreed to end Macedonian irredentism and Antiquization policies". As yet there has been no such source.
You have also not responded to the comment about textbooks. Why have you removed a sentence directly referencing a source you added to the article? Pinkbeast (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
You said: There is no admission there that they ever had such an attitude for it to be ended, nor anything pertaining to the supposed antiquisation policies and I am afraid you are wrong and you know this, yet you are wasting my time trying to push denialist POV on the article.
The nationalist policies, are, as the sources have reported, a heat issue between the two countries and was a matter raised by the Greek PM in his talks with his Macedonian counterpart. And his counterpart took steps in reverting these policies to appease the Greek side. Period. The sources did not report explicitly that the Macedonian side has verbally said or denied these policies, only that the country has no such intentions and is undoing these policies as a sign of goodwill towards Greece.
You claim that just because the government did not explicitly state it this shouldn't be seen as being the case, and I disagree. The sources I provided on the Greek PM's meeting with his Macedonian counterpart, clearly report on the nationalist policies as an existing issue between the two countries.
Note that there are more developments on this front, following the meeting of the two PMs: these days, the Skopje 2014 project (the main project and flagship of the Antiquisation policies) has been officially terminated by the new Mayor and the Skopje City Hall Council which decided that it instead redirects the money to other more beneficial projects in the country. This again, only few days after the meeting of the two PMs. Coincidence? I don't think so. I will add the new info and sources about the ongoing developments, soon.
And as for the schoolbooks, I think I have been very clear to you. Do not expect me or anyone else here to let a journalist's note on the lack of official statement of the one side about the MUIs to be used by you as a mean of questioning the information about these MUIs. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 01:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems plain that this is going nowhere. I have sought a 3rd opinion and will abide by the result of that process.

The phrases I wish a 3rd opinion on are as follows:

  • "the two PMs vowed to take concrete steps to resolve the naming dispute and agreed to end Macedonian irredentism and Antiquization policies in exchange for Greek consent on Macedonia's bid to regional initiatives or agreements"
I have seen no cite to say that the Macedonian PM "vowed" to do any such thing. The closest we have come is a cite saying that the Macedonian PM says "we have no irredentist attitude towards our neighbor"; this is not the same thing. If I say "I am not standing on your toes", that does not imply an admission that I was in the past standing on your toes (even if there is considerable evidence that in fact I was).
  • "Nikos Kotzias stated on 29 September 2017 that a joint Greek–Macedonian commission would undertake a review of Macedonian schoolbooks with a view to the removal of any nationalist or irredendist content from them, an initiative proposed by the Macedonian side which later is confirmed by the Greek side to be part of the MUI."
Does this merit inclusion at all? The cites are rather weak. The first makes no mention of a joint commission at all, it simply says that Macedonia has proposed to review textbooks. The second isn't willing to say the commission is actually happening; it isn't even willing to say the Greek government says the commission is actually happening. It says that a specific member of the Greek government asserts it. The second source also says "Officially on the Macedonian side there is no confirmation that on November 4, a mixed Greek-Macedonian commission on history should start to work". The third source is willing to say it is happening, but again attributes it to Kotzias. Collectively, these cites appear distinctly ambivalent on the subject of whether this commission actually exists. Since it was meant to start work on November 4th last year, it should be perfectly practical to provide a better cite. If that can't be done I suggest this material should be removed - the lack of such a cite would seem to suggest the lack of a commission.
  • "Macedonian sources have not confirmed this"
I inserted this; it was removed. It was taken directly from the second cite and appears entirely pertinent. I believe it merits inclusion. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
@Pinkbeast: It seems that you have missed the keyword "would" in *"Nikos Kotzias stated on 29 September 2017 that a joint Greek–Macedonian commission would undertake a review of Macedonian schoolbooks with a view to the removal of any nationalist or irredendist content from them, an initiative proposed by the Macedonian side which later is confirmed by the Greek side to be part of the MUI.". The sources do not mention about an *actual* joint commission having *already* been formed. Hence why here you see no more than just the announcement and statement of the Greek high-ranked diplomat on the MUIs.
Unless you are arguing that the information has to be removed from Wikipedia, on the grounds that there is lack of official confirmation by diplomats other than the Greek ones? Since when do the statements by the highest-ranked Greek diplomat not stand as a reliable source when it comes to reporting diplomatic initiatives and affairs that diplomat has undertaken on Greece's behalf? Since when the Greek diplomat's statements or announcements on bilateral agreements of Greece with other countries cannot be enough by itself? In Wikipedia, usually you don't have to cite multiple sources, especially on low-profile initiatives such as the MUIs. Just an official statement provided in a source is enough to verify that indeed the X has been said or Y has been planned. Usually, what a country's highest ranked diplomat who is head of the Foreign Ministry announces, is considered reliable or valid by Wikipedia unless the opposite side with whom Greece has made these initiatives, makes contradictory statements or denies that information alltogether.
In our case, as far as I am aware, no one from the Macedonian side (be it the Macedonian Foreign Minister or other officials) ever came out in public or to the media to deny the Greek FM's statement, nor any editors are questioning it, besides you, and I fail to see why is this information about the MUIs a problem of WP:Reliability or even a case of WP:Verifiability. Information doesn't necessarily have to come from a specific source for it to be considered valid, as is the case about the MUIs, for which what little information is known, is outside of the MFAs. I provided sources confirming that this MUI was initially proposed by the Macedonian side, and newer sources confirming that this proposal has become part of the MUIs. That this info has been confirmed only by the Greek side but not the Macedonian, is unecessary and it does not go against Wikipedia's rules for WP:Verifiability and even WP:NPOV. If this was, then I am afraid many Wikipedia articles could be in dire need for tagging and have their content rewritten with unnecessary clarifications such as "for every X information, the Y or Z side has not confirmed it/commented on it yet". This is a very unecyclopedic approach.
On the "the two PMs vowed to take concrete steps to resolve the naming dispute and agreed to end Macedonian irredentism and Antiquization policies in exchange for Greek consent on Macedonia's bid to regional initiatives or agreements" I have provided numerous sources confirming that the Macedonian side agreed to undo Macedonian irredendist or Antiquisation policies of the previous governments, and the Greek side agreed to undo the veto of Macedonia's entry to international initiatives. And not only that, but the events that followed after our discussion, merely confirmed what it is not obvious to you: One or two weeks later, the Airport and streets/venues were being renamed, amd at the same time, the Greek side announced it was lifting the block of the country's membership to these international initiatives. To argue that these actions of the Macedonian side and the lifting of the veto from the Greek side are irrelevant to Greek concerns over the irredendist and antiquisation policies of the previous Macedonian government, or merely coincidental, then I am sorry but you should better update yourself on the Greek-Macedonian affairs because this, to those who follow the Greek-Macedonian affairs, is anything but coincidental and obviously very important detail. And needless to say, the fact that the current Macedonian government under leftist SDSM party has refrained or hesitated in mentioning the irredendist policies of the previous nationalist far-right VMRO-DPMNE government, does not makes what the previous government has done less a case. That the current Macedonian government refrained from commenting on the previous government's policies, other than announcing that it does not follow such policies, and that it is reversing the previous government's policies on this matter, in its talks with the Greek Premier who raised the issue, does not make the Antiquisation policies less of a case. I am baffled by such logics that it could. It is like to argue that "I was not standing on your toes", yet "now I do things (rename of airport and avenues) to make sure I am not standing on your toes anymore". Pinkbeast, there are these 2 articles for you to read: [10] and [11] which I recommend that you read, so you can understand the complicated nature of the Greek-Macedonian relations as this will help you in understanding why the Macedonian Premier's statement that his country no longer harbors irredendism towards Greece, isn't coincidental with his decision to undo the nationalist policies of the previous government, but more like "my government isn't standing on your toes, but the previous government was and we are correcting this". -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 14:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
To be precise, one of the cites you provided said that the commission was going to start work in November 2017. Hence if it exists it should be straightforward to provide cites about its work, since it will now have been working for 4 months. If you can provide such cites of course my objection to its inclusion can be withdrawn.
One of the cites you provided notes explicitly there has been no Macedonian confirmation of this commission. Is it a reliable source or is it not? If it is, we should consider why the source felt the need to state that explicitly.
What you're doing with the airport renaming &c is synthesis. No doubt it is obvious to Greece that this is a reversion of irredentist policies. I imagine it is equally obvious to Macedonia that at the end of the day it's just the name of an airport and if changing it will help to end what they perceive as paranoid obstruction by Greece, so be it. If the conclusion you draw is to be in the article, it should be in a source - ideally not one closely associated either of the involved countries. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia_naming_dispute/Archive_7&oldid=845927710"